header-logo header-logo

Practice

25 November 2010
Issue: 7443 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

C v D and another [2010] EWHC 2940 (Ch), [2010] All ER (D) 176 (Nov)

A time-limited offer was not capable of being a CPR 36 offer, as the structure of Pt 36 in general—and the provisions of CPR 36.2(2) and CPR 36.14(6) in particular—established that an offer had to be capable of acceptance unless and until withdrawn by service of a notice within CPR 36.9(2). CPR 36.9(2) provided a strong indicator of the sort of offer with which Pt 36 was concerned. The indicator was that it was an offer which was at least capable of being withdrawn and was not one which came to an end according to its own terms. Under CPR 36.14 there was a severe costs sanction placed on a defendant who did not accept a Pt 36 offer where there was judgment against the defendant which was at least as advantageous to the claimant as the proposals contained in a claimant’s Pt 36 offer.

That sanction did not apply where the Pt 36 offer had been withdrawn or where the terms had been

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Leeds office strengthened with triple partner hire

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Corporate lawyer joins as partner in London office

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll